When Sarah finally made it to Jerusalem, the Nazir was in the midst of a ta’anit dibur. R. Kook summoned R. Zvi Pesah Frank and R. Yeruham Fishel Bernstein so that they could sit as a beit din and void the ta’anit dibur, thus allowing him to speak to his soon-to-be bride.[18]

Another noteworthy recent book is Michael J. Harris, Faith Without Fear: Unresolved Issues in Modern Orthodoxy. In my blurb that appears on the back cover, I write: “A proud and sophisticated manifesto of Modern Orthodoxy, one which builds on past thinkers but does not hesitate to chart new ground as well.” Rabbi Harris deals with a number of issues such as the role and status of women, mysticism, academic biblical scholarship, and religious pluralism. He generally comes down on the more “liberal” side of what is known as Modern Orthodoxy. (An exception to this generalization is his chapter on academic biblical scholarship.) Anyone who is interested in the intellectual trends of Modern Orthodoxy will want to read Harris’s book, as it is engaged scholarship at its best.

I would also like to call attention to R. Shimon Szimonowitz’s just published Haggadah shel Pesah: Aleh Zayit.[23] I know that there are a lot of Haggadot out there, but for talmidei hakhamim this is one of the special ones. I say this because of the many learned comments, including full-length essays, that are found in the volume. Of particular interest to me is R. Szimonowitz’s lengthy article on le-shem yihud. It is crucial reading for anyone interested in the dispute over the le-shem yihud formulation, in particular the positions of R. Ezekiel Landau, R. Eleazar Fleckeles, and R. Moses Sofer. Among other noteworthy things found in this Haggadah are an article by R. Chaim Rapoport and the Yiddish version of a few beloved Passover songs.

3. On June 5, 2016, in honor of Yom Yerushalayim, I will be speaking at the Community Synagogue of Monsey, 89 West Maple Avenue. The title of my talk is “R. Shlomo Goren: The Revolutionary Chief Rabbi.” The talk will follow minhah which is at 8:15pm.

Mossad HaRav Kook Sale 2016

By Eliezer Brodt

For over thirty years, starting on Isru
Chag of Pesach, Mossad HaRav Kook publishing house has made a big sale on
all of their publications, dropping prices considerably (some books are marked as low as 65% off). In recent years their practice has been to publish several new
titles in the few weeks prior to the sale; during the rest of the year not as many titles are printed. They also reprint some of their older out of print titles. Some years important works are printed; others not as much. This year they have printed many valuable works, as they did last year. (See here
for a review of some of last year’s titles.)

If you’re interested in a PDF of
their complete catalog email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

As in previous years, I am offering
a service, for a small fee, to help one purchase seforim from this sale.–The
sale’s last day is Sunday. For more information about this, email me at
Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the
efforts of the Seforim Blog.

What follows is a list and brief
description of some of their newest titles.

1. ר’ אברהם אבן עזרא, ספר צחות, מהדיר: ר’ מרדכי
גודמן, עניני דקדוק בלשון הקדוש ופירוש פסוקים קשים לפי פשוטם ודקדוקם, רצח עמודים

2. ר’ אברהם אבן עזרא, ספר מאזנים, מהדיר: ר’ מרדכי
גודמן, עניני דקדוק בלשון הקדוש ופירוש פסוקים קשים לפי פשוטם ודקדוקם, רי עמודים

These
two volumes are critical editions of the Ibn Ezra works Sefer Tzachus
and Sefer Moznayim, based on manuscripts and include numerous
useful notes and indexes.

3. ר’ יוסף חיון, פירוש לתהלים מכ”י, תרסה עמודים

This
work printed once before in 1522. This edition is based on manuscripts. The
Pirush is by one of the talmidim of R’ Yitzchack Kanpanton and is more Peshat
oriented. It includes an introduction and notes.

4. ר’ משה איסרליש הרמ”א, תורת חטאת,על פי
כ”י ודפוס ראשון עם הערות, תמח עמודים

This
is a new edition of the Rama classic work Toras Chatas based upon an
hitherto unused manuscript. In the introduction the editor explains various
reasons for the significance of printing this edition, based on this new
manuscript.

5. חשבון הנפש, מהדורה מתוקנת עם הוספות רבות, 24+ קעה
עמודים

This
is yet another edition of the famous classic Musar book which has
“ties” to Benjamin Franklin (a subject I will hopefully return to).
This volume begins with a very good introduction and includes many useful notes
throughout the work. It also includes some new pieces from the author’s other
manuscripts.

6. ר’ אהרן מרקוס, קסת הסופר, פירוש על בראשית- לך לך,
כולל מפתחות, תנג עמודים

This
is a retyped version of R’ Aron Marcus’s work on Chumash. The rest of the work
is lost. Some are fans of his, others not (see my Likutei Eliezer, p.
63), but it is definitely an interesting read. This new edition includes an
index.

7. ר’ אברהם לנדא, צלותא דאברהם, תתקפז
עמודים

It’s
special news for many that this classic has been reprinted, as it has been
sought after by many for years since it was last in print. This work is one of
the best collections out there on Tefilah. It systematically deals with the
sources for the weekday siddur, based on a wide range of classic sources. It
also deals with the Nuschaos of Tefilah. This edition includes corrections and additions
to the previous versions. 

8. אוסף כתביו של דב זלוטניק, ב’ חלקים, 287+389
עמודים

This
is a collection of all of the late Professor Dov Zlotnick’s writings, in Hebrew
and English. Included are several articles about his teacher Professor Saul
Leiberman as well as a collection of various articles containing material from
the notes of his great teacher’s personal copies of seforim which Prof.
Zlotnick had published. In addition, this collection includes his book Pillar
of Iron: the Mishna which has been out of print for some time along his
introduction to his edition of the Tractate of Mourning for Yale Press
(with some notes of his on the side).

9. ר’ ראובן רז, הרב קוק בין חסידים
למתנגדים, מפגש של שלושה עולמות ויחסם לציונות, 200 עמודים

Looking
at the title of the book and its table of contents it appears to have
interesting material related to topics such as R’ Kook and Chasidim, the Gra,
R’ Chaim Volozhiner, Ger Chasidus and more. Admittedly, I have not yet had
a chance to get deeper into the book.

10.ר’ נריה גוטל, שלמי שמחה, עיוני מועדים
וזמנים, 629 עמודים

This
work from R’ Gutel is a collection of his articles printed in numerous journals
spanning a wide range of topics. Many (including myself) are great fans of his,
especially from his classic work Histanut Hatvi’im B’Halacha.

Here
is a very accurate description of the work as it appears on the back:

יש שימצא
בה בקעה למדנית ויש שימצא בה ניתוח מחקרי, יש שיעדיף היבט הלכתי מעשי, ויש שיבכר
דווקא זווית הגותית אגדית פעמים שהמאמר בה בארוכה ופעמים שהוא בא דווקא  בקצרה וכן הלאה על דרך זה. לאחר פרסומם הראשון
עלו חלק מן המאמרים על שלחנם של גדולי ישראל, וזכו להארות הערות והתייחסויות מצדם
התגובות שבכתב הובאו בספר זה, והן מתפרסמות בו לראשונה יחד עם המאמרים שפורסמו זה
מכבר. בנוסף צורפו לספר זה מספר מאמרים שטרם ראו אור.

Here
is a scan of the table of contents to give one some sense of the wide range of
subjects:

11. ר’ איתם הנקין הי”ד, אש תמיד,
חידושים וביאורי דינים על סדר שלחן ערוך ומשנה ברורה, 369 עמודים

It’s
only been a few months since the terrible tragedy of the murder of R’ Eitam
Henkin and his wife. R’ Eitam was a special and unique person combining many
talents all in one. He was a great talmid chacham, Historian and talented writer all “wrapped
up” in one package. This work was something he had completed before his murder
and which he was very proud of. It received many impressive Haskomos which in
my opinion (for whatever it’s worth) are not exaggerated at all. He had the
unique ability to write clearly and concisely – penetrating to the heart of the
issue. This is a very valuable contribution to the world of Halacha
specifically Hilchos Shabbos. Sample pages are available upon request.

Everything is Illuminated: Mining the Art of Illustrated Haggadah Manuscripts for Meaning

            We have discussed haggadah illustrations in the past (see the links at the end of this post) and we wanted to expand and update upon that discussion for this year. In this post we focus on Hebrew illuminated haggadah manuscripts, and in the follow-up post will turn our attention to printed illustrated haggadot.

            While there is not as large of a body of Jewish art as that of art in general, historically Jews have appreciated the visual arts early in their evolution into a nation.  Aside from the biblical forms, we have evidence of art dating to the second century of the common era in the well-known frescos at the Dura-Europos synagogue.[1] But, such appreciation was not limited to second century Palestinian Jews, as evidenced from the discussion below, this appreciation continued, almost unabated, until the modern period.  It was not just the artist class or wealthy acculturated Jews that were exposed to and admired this medium.  For example, in the 1560 Mantua haggadah, one of the more important printed illustrated haggadot, the wise son appears to be modeled after Michelangelo’s Jeremiah in the Sistine Chapel (view it here: link). 

            

Lest one think that it is highly unlikely that a 16th century Italian Jew would have even entered the chapel, let alone been familiar with this painting, a contemporaneous account of Jewish art appreciation disabuses those assumptions.  Specifically, Giorgi Vasari, the 16th century artist and art historian, in his Lives of Excellent Painters (first published in 1560), records regarding Michelangelo’s statute of Moses – that is a full statute depicting the human form and was placed in the church of San Pietro in Rome – that “the Jews [go] in crowds, both men and women, every Saturday, like flocks of starlings, to visit and adore the statue.” That is, the Sabbath afternoon activity was to go to church to admire the statute of Moses, that is more famous for having horns than its Jewish visitors.[2]

Hebrew Manuscripts Background  

A brief background regarding Hebrew manuscripts before delving into the illuminated haggadah manuscripts. Details regarding manuscripts, the name of the copyist, the date, and the place where the manuscript was written, were supplied not at the beginning of the book – as is the convention with printed books and title pages –  instead in manuscripts this information is provided at the end. For this reason, the scribe’s note containing the information was called a colophon – from the Greek word kolofon, meaning “summit” or “final point.”[3]

Number of Hebrew mss.

A cautious guess of the number of extant Hebrew manuscripts in existence is between 60,000 -70,000 “but no more than 30-40 thousand of them predate the middle of the sixteenth century.”[4] Of the 2-3 hundred thousand Hebrew manuscripts presumed in existence in Europe at the beginning of the fourteenth century, probably no more than four to five thousand are extant today, possibly even less. “From the tenth century (before which information is very scarce) to 1490 (when the influence of printing books began to be felt)” there are an estimated one million manuscripts, meaning, “that 95 per cent of manuscripts have disappeared.”[5]  In addition, the early printed books – incunabula – had similar survival rates.

            The dearth of manuscripts has left a significant hole in our knowledge of major Jewish texts.  For example, there is only one complete manuscript of the Palestinian Talmud (1289) and two partial manuscripts. The Babylonian Talmud fared slightly better, with one complete manuscript (1342) and 63 partial manuscripts in libraries, with only 14 dating from the 12th & 13th centuries.[6] 

One of the partial TPs is known as the Vatican Codex 133 – and worth mentioning is the Vatican and its role regarding Hebrew manuscripts.  While there is no doubt that the Church had a significant hand in reducing the number of manuscripts – in reality the destruction of Hebrew manuscripts was the work of the Jesuits and not the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, the Church confiscated and, thus in some instances preserved Hebrew manuscripts.  Consequently, we have a number of important Jewish texts that survive in the Vatican library.  Today, many of these manuscripts have been published.  The incomplete manuscript of the TP is but one example.  Additionally, regarding the use of (rather than just reprinting) the Vatican library, for at least late 19th century, Jews had access to the library.  For example, R. Raphael Nathan Rabinowitz, who authored a monumental work on Talmudic variants provides that “I prayed to God to permit me entrance to the Vatican library to record variant readings” his prayer was answered, and he received permission not only to use it during regular hours but “even on days that it was closed due to Christian holidays, when the library was closed to all, and even more so Jews.”[7] In total he spent close to 9 months in the library. In addition, Rabbi Rabinowitz’s presence and special status at the Vatican library was instrumental for the editing of the Vilna Talmud, where he secured permission for the Romm-employed copyists to work with manuscripts of the commentary of Rabbenu Hananel, even though they arrived in Rome during the summer season when the library was closed.

            Of the estimated one million Hebrew manuscripts from the 10th century until 1490, approximately 5% have survived.  As mentioned, religious persecution was one reason, but the main reasons are (1) deterioration from use, (2) accidents, and (3) reuse.  The first two are self-explanatory, the third requires a bit of explanation.  From the times that manuscripts were written on papyrus, unwanted manuscripts were scraped or washed and then reused.  (This papyrus recycling was not confined to reusing for books, papyrus was used from wrapping mummies, burned for its aroma, and used, according to Apices, to wrap meat for cooking). Similarly, leather and parchment were recycled, in the more egregious examples for shoe leather but in many cases for book bindings.  The latter reuse would be critical to the survival of numerous Hebrew manuscripts which have now been reclaimed from bindings.  It is estimated that there are 85,000 such binding fragments.  “The commonest use of written folios, however, was in bindings, whether for binding strips, end papers, or covers.”[8]   

Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts

            The “earliest examples of Jewish book illumination are tenth-and eleventh-century Bible codices written in the Orient or Near East.  The illuminations are not figurative but consist of a number of decorative carpet pages adorned with abstract geometric or micrographic designs preceding or following the Biblical text.”[9] While these early illuminated manuscripts did not contain human figures, they did contain the first iterations of something unique to Jewish manuscripts, “one form of manuscript depiction unique to Jewish manuscripts is micrography with the earliest examples of this art may be found in the tenth-century Bibles written in the Orient.”[10]  A beautiful example of this art can be seen in the carpet pages for the Leningrad Codex. 

Similar non-representational geometric art was incorporated into Islamic art to avoid graphic representation.  Consequently, symmetrical forms were created which required advances in math theory to accommodate the ever more complex art.

Hebrew manuscripts did not adopt the Islamic convention – for the most part – and the earliest illustrations of human figures appear in Franco-Ashkenazic manuscripts – bibles – of the thirteenth century.

The earliest extant illustrated haggadah[11] is what is known as the Birds’ Head Haggadah dated to the early 1300s. The moniker “Birds’ Head” comes from the fact that the illustrator used birds heads/griffins in place of human heads. This manuscript is not the only Jewish manuscript to use zoophilic (the combination of man and beast) images. Zoophilic images can be found in a variety of contexts in Jewish manuscripts. For example, in the manuscript known as Tripartite Machzor, men are drawn normally while the women are drawn with animal heads.[12]  The name of this Machzor comes from the random fact that the manuscript was split up into three.  At times manuscripts are titled by location (Leipzig Mahzor), history (tripartite) or owner.  In one example, the “Murphy Haggadah” “ suffered a fate all too common to many Hebrew texts.  Before the Second World War the manuscript belonged to Baron Edmond de Rothschild.  During the war it was stolen and sold to an American, F.T. Murphy, who bequeathed it to Yale University, his alma matter.  For years it was known as the “Murphy Haggadah” until, in 1980, a Yale scholar, Prof. J. Marrow, identified as belonging to the Rothschilds.  The manuscript was returned to the Rothschild family and presented by the Baroness Dorothy to the Jewish National Library.[13]

            When it comes to the Birds’ Head manuscript, a variety of reasons have been offered for its imagery, running the gamut from halachik concerns to the rather incredible notion that the images are actually anti-Semitic with a bird’s beak standing in for the Jewish nose trope and the claim that the ears on the “birds” are reminiscent of pigs’ ears. Generally, those claiming halackhic, or more particular pietistic reasons, do so because they are unable “to conceive of such a bizarre and fanciful treatment of the human image as emerging from anywhere other than the twisted and febrile imagination of religious fanatics.”[14] But, in reality the use of bird’s head in lieu of human “reflects a liberal halakhic position rather than an extreme one.”[15]  The camp of Yehuda ha–Hassid would ban all human, animal and celestial depictions, a more liberal position from this perspective permits animal images.  And, while that position doesn’t explicitly permit a depiction half-animal half-human, the zoophilic images appear to show they were allowed, as the illuminator and owner of the Birds Head Haggadah agreed with that position.

            Aside from halakha, and the meaning or lack thereof behind “birds”, a close examination how the illuminator used this convention yields surprising nuance and commentary.      

While most of the images carry a bird’s head, there are a few exceptions. Most notably, non-Jews, both corporeal and spiritual do not. Instead, non-Jewish humans as well as angels have blank circles instead of faces. But, there is one scene that poses a problem. One illustration shows the Jews fleeing Egypt (all with birds’ heads), being pursued by Pharaoh and his army. Pharaoh and his army are depicted faceless.

  But, unlike the rest of the figures in Pharaoh’s army, two figures appear with birds’ heads. Some write this off to carelessness on the illustrator’s part. Epstein, who credits his (then) ten-year old son for a novel explanation, offers that these two figures are Datan and Aviram, two prominent members of the erev rav, those Jews who elected to remain behind. Indeed, they are brandishing whips indicative of their role as nogsim (Jewish taskmasters, or the precursor to Jewish Sonderkommando). While the illustrator included them with the Egyptians, he still allowed them to remain with their “Jewish” bird’s head.  This is a powerful idea regarding the idea of sin, and specifically, the Jewish view that even when a Jew sins, they still retain their Jewish identity – their “birds head.”   Sin, and including sinners as Jews, are motifs that are highlighted on Pesach with the mention of the wicked son and perhaps is also indicated with this illustration. The illustrator could have left Datan and Aviram out entirely or decided to mark them some other way rather than the Birds’ head. Thus, utilizing this explanation allows for the illustrator to enable a broader discussion about not only the exodus and the Egyptian army’s chase, but expands the discussion to sin, repentance, Jewish identity, inclusiveness and exclusiveness and other related themes.[16]

            Once we have identified the Jews within the haggadah, we need to discuss another nuance in their depiction.  The full dress of the adult male bird is one with a beard and a “Jewish hat,” pieus conutus – a peaked hat, or the Judenhut.  Children and young servants are bareheaded.  But, there are three other instances of bareheadness that are worthy of discussion.  (1) Joseph in Egypt, (2) the Jews in Egypt and (3) Datan and Aviram.  The similarity between all three is that each depicts a distance from god or Jewish identity.  Joseph, unrecognizable to his brothers, a stranger in a strange land, and while inwardly a Jew, externally that was not the case.

            The Jews in Egypt had sunk to the deepest depths on impurity, far from God. Finally, as we discussed previously, Datan and Aviram are also removed from god and the Jewish people.  Again, the illustrator is depicting Jews – they all have the griffin heads – but they are distinct in their interaction with god and the Jewish people.[17]  

Using this interpretation of the griffin images, yields yet another subtle point regarding inclusion, and also injects some humor into the haggadah.  The dayenu panel has splitting of the sea, the manna and the giving of the Torah.  The middle panel is less clear. Some posit that it is the Jews celebrating at the sea, but there is no indication of that because in most manuscripts, that includes Miriam, and the Egyptians drowning, not just five random images.

   
Instead, it appears that the person to the left is speaking (his hand is over his heart a medieval convention to indicate speech), and they are approaching the older figure on the left.  All are griffin headed and Judenhut attired – so Jews and regular ones. Between the splitting of the sea and the manna and quails the Jews complained to Moses.  Its possible that this is what is being depicted here, the complaining Jews, and the illustration serves as a testament to God’s patience and divine plan, the theme of dayenu, that even though we complained and did X, God still brought the manna, quail and Torah.[18] 

            If these are in fact the complainers, we can theorize about another detail of the image.  Above the figure at the left and the right, is faint cursive (enhanced here for visibility as much as possible) that reads: “Dass ist der Meirer (this is Meir) Dass ist der Eisik (this is Issac).”[19]  Thus Meir and Issac are being chided – but not kicked out – for complaining too much (rather than representing an unclear image of the Jews celebrating at the sea or just evidencing poor dancing). 

            Continuing through the dayenu we get to the giving of the Torah, and again, the nuance of the illustrator is apparent

.

            Two tablets were given at Sinai, but the actual Pentateuch is comprised of 5 books.  Thus, to capture that the 5 are a continuity of the two, as they are transmitted down, they transform into five tablets.  What about the ram/lamb at the bottom?  Some have suggested that it is the Golden Calf. But it is unlikely that such a negative incident would be included.  Instead, assuming that continuity or tradition is the theme, this lamb is representative of pesah dorot that is an unbroken tradition back to Sinai and unconnected with the Christian idea of Jesus as a stand in for the lamb.  Immediately prior to dayenu we have the Pesach mitzrayim with the figure’s cloak blowing back due to the haste.

       Thus, the dayenu is bracketed by the historic Pesach and the modern one – all part of the same tradition. [20]  

            It is worth mentioning that the Birds’ Head Haggadah is currently in the news. An item recently appeared about how the heirs of Ludwig Marum and his wife Johanna Benedikt, the owners of the haggadah prior to the Nazi era, are pressing the Israel Museum to recognize their family’s title, and pay them a large sum of money (but only a fraction of its estimated value). The Israel Museum acquired the haggadah for $600 from a German Jewish refugee in 1946.  (link).

            Turning to Spain, one of the most beautiful illuminated haggadot is the “Golden Haggadah.”  Just as the Ashkenazi Bird’s Head has depth to the illustrations, the Golden Haggadah can be mined for similar purpose.  Each folio is comprised of four panels.  And while they appear to simply depict the biblical narrative, they are so much more. 

            In an early panel we have Nimrod throwing Abraham into the fire and later Pharaoh throwing the males in the Nile, both Nimrod and Pharaoh are similarly depicted, on the throne, with a pointed finger indicating their equivalence in denying god. 

            The folio showing the Joseph story has the brothers pointing in the same manner as Pharaoh and Nimrod – the illustrator showing his disdain for the mistreatment and betrayal and equating it with the others.

            But, that is not all.  Counting the panels there are 9 between Nimrod and Joseph and 9 between Joseph and Pharaoh.  Taken together, these illustrations “renders an implicit critique of the attitude of that Jewish history is nothing but an endless stream of persecution of innocent Israel by the bloodthirsty gentiles.  Yes, it is acknowledged, these gentile kinds might behave villainously in their persecution of Jews.  But groundless hatred between brother and brother is on par with such terrible deeds, and sometimes sinat hinam can precipitated treachery as destructive as persecution by inveterate enemies.”[21]

            One other striking feature of the Golden Haggadah is the inclusion of women. There are no fewer than 46 prominent depictions of women in the haggadah.  Indeed, one reading of the exodus scene has a woman with a baby at the forefront leading the Jews out of Egypt behind Moses.

            This may be a reference to the midrash that “in the merit of the righteous women the Jews were redeemed.”[22]  The difference in the exodus scene is particularly striking if one compares it to the Ashkenaz Haggadah – Moses clearly at the front, and the most prominent woman in the back.

Of course, it is completely appropriate for the inclusion of women in the haggadah as women and men are equally obligated to participate in the seder. Another example of the prominence that woman play in the Golden Haggadah iconography is the scene of Miriam singing includes the largest images in the haggadah, the women occupying the full panel.  We don’t know why the illustrator chose to highlight women – was it for a patron or at a specific request.[23] 

The Golden Haggadah is not the only manuscript that includes women in a prominent role in the illustrations.  The Darmstadt Haggadah includes two well-known illuminations that place woman at the center.  The illuminations adoring other Darmstadt serve a different purpose than the Golden or Birds’ Head, they are purely aesthetic.[24]  Thus, the inclusion of women may not be linked to anything in particular.  At the same time, it is important to note that in terms of reception, that is, how the reader viewed it, the focus on women was not cause for consternation. One other note regarding the haggadah, the last panel is a depiction fountain of youth.  Note that men and woman are bathing – nude – together, which seems odd to a modern viewer (and, again, apparently did not to the then contemporary reader).  And, while admittedly not exactly the same, the 14th century R. Samuel ben Baruch of Bamberg (a teacher of R. Meir of Rothenberg) permitted a non-Jewish woman to bath a man so long as it was in public to reduce the likelihood of anything untoward occurring.[25] 

Before we leave the Darmstadt Haggadah, we need to examine the panel facing the Fountain of Youth. This panel depicts a deer hunt.

 As mentioned above, this image is not connected to the text and instead is solely for aesthetic purposes.  The hunting motif is common in many medieval manuscripts, and in some a unicorn is substituted for a deer.  While the unicorn has Christological meaning, on some occasions it also appears in Hebrew manuscripts.[26]

While the use of the hunting scene in the Darmstadt Haggadah was unconnected to the haggadah, in others it was deployed for substantive purpose.[27] [As an aside, it is possible that Jews participated, possibly Rabbenu Tam, in hunting, or at least its falconry form.[28]] As is well-known, the inclusion of the hare hunt is to conjure the Talmudic mnemonic regarding the appropriate sequence over the wine, candle, and the other required blessings, or YaKeNHaZ.  “To Ashkenazic Jews, YaKeNHaZ sounded like the German Jagen-has, ‘hare hunt,’ which thereby came to be illustrated as such in the Haggadah.”[29]

 Generally, Jews seem to have issues with botany.  We struggle to identify which of the handful of fruits and vegetables mention in the Bible and Talmud. But on Passover, the marror an undefined term, proves particularly illusory. Today, there is no consistency regarding what is used for marror with it running the gamut from iceberg lettuce to horseradish root. While we may not be able to identify it with specificity, we know what its supposed to taste like – bitter.  Manuscripts may provide some direction here.  There are two depictions in illuminated haggadot.  One of a leafy green, found in numerous examples, from a fragment from the Cairo Geniza to the Birds’ Head, and that of an artichoke.[30]  If it is a leafy green, it must be a bitter one – and that changes based upon time, place and palate.  For example, 30 years ago romaine lettuce was only the bitter lettuce widely available. But, among lettuces, it is far from bitter, and today, there are a variety of truly bitter lettuces available, arugula, mustard greens, dandelion, mesclun, etc.  Another leafy and very bitter option that is found in illuminated haggadot is the artichoke.  The artichoke is extremely bitter without proper preparation.  Indeed, from just touching the leaves and putting them in your mouth you can taste the bitterness.  The Sarajevo Haggadah and brother to the Rylands both have artichokes.

            The association of the artichoke with Passover is more obvious when one accounts for Italian culinary history.  Specifically, artichokes are associated with Jews and Passover. Carcoifi alla giudia – literally Jewish style artichokes “is among the best known dishes of Roman Jewish cuisine.” Artichokes are a spring thistle and traditionally served at Passover in Italy.  Whether or not from a culinary history this dish sprung from the use of raw artichoke for marror is not known, but we can say with certainty that artichokes have a considerable history when it comes to Passover. 

Horseradish only became popular, in all likelihood, because an early Pesach, would be too soon for any greens and thus they were left with horseradish – which is not bitter at all, instead it is spicy or more particularly hot.  In Galicia in the 19th century the use of horseradish was so ingrained that  permission was even granted and affirmed for people to use less than a kezayit  and still recite the blessing. In light of this, the custom yields the possibility that all sort of other spicy items be used for marror including very hot jalapeño peppers, for example.[31] Since we are discussing herbs, it is also worth noting that recently rulings regarding the use of marijuana and Pesach have been issued both in Israel and the United States (here), for our discussion on marijuana and Pesach please see here.

            One manuscript captures the uncertain identification of marror.  In the Tubingen Haggadah, the place where the illustration for marror is left blank, presumably to permit the owner to fill in what they are accustomed to use.

            Marror is not the only vegetable that is eaten during the seder, another difficult to identify is the karpas.  Today there are a variety of items used, and in reality, any dip-able vegetable will suffice, historically, it seems that lettuce or celery was used. The Birds Head provides that “lattich (lettuce) and eppich (celery) should be used. These are traditional salad foods, which, in the normal course of things, would be dipped or tossed with a dressing.  A dressing can be a simple as vinegar, and indeed, in many medieval haggadot, hometz or vinegar is used to dip.  We can trace the change from the more obviously salad oriented vinegar to saltwater where in the Darmstadt Haggadah, a later hand wrote on top of hometz – mei melekh.  While it appears nearly universal that hometz was used, its disfavor may be connected to a rule unrelated to Passover.  Since the Middle Ages, there is a dispute whether or not vinegar falls under the ambit of stam yenam.  Thus, the change to saltwater may be more of a reflection about views on what constitutes stam yenam and less to do with tears.

            One final food item is the haroset preparation.  Apples are familiar and linked to the midrash regarding birthing under an apple tree, in the Rothschild Machzor and the 2nd Nuremburg haggadah, cinnamon is called for because “it resembles straw.”  It also concludes that “some incorporate clay into the haroset to remind them of the mortar. For those wanting to replicate this addition, edible clay, kaolin, is now easily procured, and there is even a preparation that creates stone-like potatoes, perfect for the seder.

            To be continued… but until then see these posts Halakha & Haggadah, and regarding some illustrations in the iconic Prague 1526 Haggadah, here and also Elliot Horowitz’s discussion.

R.  Elazar Fleckeles’s Haggadah Maaseh BR’ Elazar

By Eliezer Brodt

In the past I wrote:

Perhaps the topic which has engendered the most commentary in Jewish literature is the Haggadah shel Pesach. There are all kinds, in all languages, and with all types of commentary, pictures, etc. Whatever style one can think of, not one, but many Haggadahs have been written. So, whether it’s derush, kabbalah, halakha, mussar or chassidus there are plenty of Haggadahs out there. Then, there are people who specialize in collecting haggadahs although they do not regularly collect seforim. In almost every Jewish house today one can find many kinds of Haggadahs. Every year people print new ones; even people who had never written on the Haggadah have had a Haggadah published under their name, based on culling their other writings and collecting material on the Haggadah. When one goes to the seforim store before Pesach it has become the custom to buy at least one new Haggadah; of course one finds themselves overwhelmed not knowing which to pick! Every year, besides for the new Haggadahs being printed, old ones are reprinted, some in photo off-set editions, others with completely retype set.

Some years there are many choices of what to buy; in recent years, while the quantity of Haggadahs being printed has not ebbed, the quality most arguably has. This year, one important and high quality Haggadah that has been retype-set and republished is Maaseh BR’ Elazar by R’ Elazar Fleckeles.

R’ Elazar Fleckeles was born in 1754 in Prague and died there in 1826. He was a direct descendant of R’ Ephraim Luntschitz, author of the Keli Yakar, whom R’ Fleckeles quotes many times throughout his writings. When R’ Fleckeles was 14, he went to study with R’ Ezekiel Landau and spent ten years studying there. R’ Landau, as is evident from his haskamot to R’ Fleckeles works, held R’ Fleckeles in high regard. Additionally, many teshuvot in R’ Landau’s Noda b’Yehuda are addressed to R’ Fleckeles. In R’ Fleckeles’s writings, he quotes many interesting statements from R’ Landau. When R’ Fleckeles was twenty-four, he became the Rabbi of Kojetin, a town in Moravia. However, just four years later R’ Fleckeles returned to Prague to sit on R’ Landau’s Bet Din and serve as a head of a yeshiva. [See also here and here].R’ Fleckeles authored many works on halakha and derush, as well as a commentary on the Haggadah called Maaseh BR’ Elazar. R’ Fleckeles was a skilled halakhist, as is evident from his volumes of responsa, Teshuva m’Ahavah, but his fame also rests on his skills as a darshan. His derashot were published in a four volumes, Olat Chodesh. The fourth volume contains, R’ Fleckeles series of derashot he gave against Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank (this section has a separate title, Ahavat David) [recently auctioned off as noted here].

Almost all of his works besides his Teshuva m’Ahavah, are very hard to find.

A few years ago a new Boro Park-based Machon called Netzach Yaakov started reprinting his seforim. In 2014 they printed a volume of his Drashot related to Elul and Tishrei along with two works, Chazon LaMoed and Olat Chodesh (437+20 pp.). This beautifully produced work, including an introduction about R’ Fleckeles and a detailed index, matches the content of the actual Drashot.

 A few weeks ago this company released a new edition of his commentary on the Haggadah: Maaseh BR’ Elazar (224 +23 pp).

The Maharil noted in a drasha that he gave before Rosh Hashonah:

כל אדם יחזור וילמוד התפלה והקרובץ מקודם להיות שגורים בפיו בר”ה בשעת התפלה. וכן ילמוד בניו ובני ביתו סדר התפלה, ויריצם סדר הברכות ומלכיות זכרונות ושופרות, כדי שלא יצטרך בר”ה להפסיק בין גאולה לתפלה להראות להם אז הסדר, כי צריכנא לסמוך גם ביום טוב גאולה לתפלה. [וכשחל ר”ה בשבת כל שכן – דצריך אדם לסדר להרגיל התפילה להראות לבני ביתו בתחילה – דאז משנין בכמה מקומות התפילה – והקרובץ [מהרי”ל, עמ’ רעב]

 But specifically more instructive is the Sefer Hamaskil‘s comment:

מה טוב ומה נעים לעיין תמיד דבר בעתו בכל שבוע ושבוע בפירוש חומש ומחזיר וסליחות… ואגדת פסח [ספר המשכיל עמ’ 70].

His basic point being that one should try to prepare before each occasion the tefilos we specific to that occasion – and for Pesach that is the Haggadah.

Many people look all over each year to have nice new pieces of Torah to say over at the seder. This work is full of nice (many) shorter pieces focusing on Peshat and Derush (not Kabbalah) which can be enjoyed by different audiences.

This Haggadah was first printed by the author in Prague in 1818.

Abraham Yaari, in his work A Bibliography of the Passover Haggadah, writes about this work:

הפרט העברי ככתבו עולה תקע”ב אולם יש לקרוא את שני היודין של השם כשם הויה, ואז יעלה תקע”ח, בהתאם לשנה הלועזית 1818, ולהסכמת הצנזור שניתנה באוקטובר 1817 [מספר 418]

For recent Discussion of other works with similar wording see Yakov Speigel Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri; BeSharei HaDefus, pp. 273-296.

In 1944 in Oradea, Romania this work was printed again. It appears that this was the last Haggadah printed in Europe during World War Two. To me it is fascinating that in this turmoil time they bothered to print this work.

Yaari records this edition [number 2308] as does Yitzchak Yudolov in The Haggadah Thesaurus [number 3918]

This 1944 edition has an interesting addition, as noted by the publisher. Into the text of the Haggadah the prelude Li Shem Yichud was added:

 ולא הוספתי עליו רק מה שנוהגים לומר לפני כל מצוה לשיחקב”ה וכו’ [=לשם יחוד קודשא…] הצגתי כהסכמת הגאון משאמלויא שליט”א…

In R’ Ehreneich’s second letter to the publisher he writes:

 

Although it’s very nice that they decided to add this into R’ Fleckeles work and not hide this addition but I do not think they had any right to do such a thing. R’ Fleckeles was very outspoken about saying Li Shem Yichud, to say the least.

דרך כלל יאות לבטל כל התחנו’ ובקשות אלו וכיוצא בהן שנתחדשו מלקוטי האחרונים ומעיד אני עלי שמים וארץ שראיתי אחד הי’ רצה לברך על אתרוג המהודר של רבינו הגאון האמתי נ”ע (כי הי’ תמיד מהדר מן המהדרין אחר אתרוג המהודר בכל מיני הידור וכסף וזהב לא הי’ נחשב בעיניו מאומ’ אף שהאתרוג הי’ בתכלית היוקר) וכאשר ראה שאותו פלוני אמר יה”ר קודם נטילת לולב (הנדפס במחזורים ובלקוטי צבי) כעס ורגז ואמר בקצף גדול האומר יה”ר אינו מניחו לברך על אתרוג שלו ולא הניחו לברך ועיין מ”ש רבינו בספרו נ”ב חלק א”ח סי’ ל”ה דף כ’ ע”ג ובחלק י”ד סי’ צ”ג והרבה יש לי לדבר בענינים האלה וכאלה ומרוב טרדותי לא אוכל להאריך [שו”ת תשובה מאהבה, א, סוף סי’ א][1]

He was following in the path of his Rebbe, the Nodeh BeYehudah, who as is well known was adamantly against the saying of Li Shem Yichud:

ועל הרביעית אשר שאל בנוסח לשם יחוד אשר חדשים מקרוב נתפשט ונדפס בסידור הנה בזה אני משיב עד שאתה שואלני נוסח אמירתו יותר ראוי לשאול אם נאמר כי טוב באמירתו. ולדעתי זה רעה חולה בדורנו ועל הדורות שלפני זמננו שלא ידעו מנוסח זה ולא אמרוהו והיו עמלים כל ימיהם בתורה ובמצות הכל ע”פ התורה וע”פ הפוסקים אשר דבריהם נובעים ממקור מים חיים ים התלמוד עליהם נאמר תומת ישרים תנחם והם הם אשר עשו פרי למעלה וגדול מעל שמים חסדם. אבל בדורנו הזה כי עזבו את תורת ה’ ומקור מים חיים שני התלמודים בבלי וירושלמי לחצוב להם בורות נשברים ומתנשאים ברום לבבם כל אחד אומר אנכי הרואה ולי נפתחו שערי שמים ובעבורי העולם מתקיים אלו הם מחריבי הדור. ועל הדור היתום הזה אני אומר ישרים דרכי ה’ וצדיקים ילכו בהם וחסידים יכשלו בם. והרבה היה לי לדבר מזה אבל כשם שמצוה לומר דבר הנשמע כך מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע וה’ ירחם עלינו. עי”ש באריכות. [נודע ביהודה (קמא) יו”ד, סי’ צג].

A few months ago I mentioned the censorship of this Teshuvah.

This topic of saying Li Shem Yichud will hopefully be discussed at a different time.[2] But just to add some sources.

In 1805, R’ Menachem Mendel of Shklov, one of the main talmidim of the Vilna Gaon, printed the Gra’s work on the Haggadah for the first time.

Before Maggid it says:

הנני מוכן ומזומן לקיים המצוה לספר ביציאת מצרים לשם יחוד הקב”ה…

In a recent edition of the Gaon’s Haggadah the editor writes:

והנה אין גילוי מפורש בדעת רבינו הגר”א ז”ל באמירת לשם יחוד אך אילו ידע רמ”מ ז”ל שרבינו ז”ל מתנגד לאמירתה בוודאי לא היה מדפיסה… [ר’ חנן נובל, הגדה של פסח עם פירוש הגר”א, ירושלים תשע”ג, עמ’ כט, עי”ש].[3]

This same passage appears in later prints of the Gra Haggadah including one printed in Prague in 1813 at the time R’ Fleckeles was very active there. [Worth noting is the censor was R’ Fleckeles friend, Karl Fisher].

Even though it is unclear what the Gra held about saying Li Shem Yichud, another talmid of his appears to write against it. Here is what R’ Menashe M’IIlyah writes about it in Alfei Menashe:

In the beginning of the Haggadah, R’ Fleckeles deals with the famous question as to why there is no Beracha on Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim, quoting a Shut Besamim Rosh on the topic [see here]. A few lines later he quotes the real Shut HaRosh, with this preface:

ובתשובות הרא”ש המקובלת לנו ראיתי…

Returning to this newest edition of the Maaseh BR’ Elazar.

One nice piece in this Haggadah is his discussion against his Rebbe, the Nodeh Beyhudah, about the Issur of Chametz in Mitzrayim.
He writes:

הנה חדשים מקרוב נדפס ספר מערבי וראיתי…

The current editors do not write to which sefer he is referring. This is the work he is referring to, first printed in 1793:

In 1959, Yitzchak Refael printed numerous additions to this Haggadah in the journal Sinai (45: 22-36). The source of these addenda is R’ Fleckeles personal copy, which he had specially bound with added on margins and blank pages inserted between each page, affording the author ample room for marginalia. After passing through several hands, finally arriving in R’ Maimon’s library. This new version of the work includes all of these addenda, in their proper places. Interestingly enough, neither Yaari nor Yudolov mention these additions in their entries on this Haggadah.Returning to Li Shem Yichud Sharon Flatto writes in her ‘The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth Century Prague’:

Notably a Haggadah was recently discovered that was owned during the late 1780s by Fleckeles…. The margins of this Haggadah contain leshem Yihud formulas to be recited before the blessing on the the four cups of wine penned in Fleckeles’ hand.

In the footnote she writes they seem to have been written between 1784-1790.'(pp. 225-226). While I wish I had more clearer sources about this discovery. She does not note that the Haggadah that R’ Fleckeles himself printed in Prague in 1818 nor in the manuscript updates of R’ Fleckeles to his own Haggadah does he write to say Li Shem Yichud or any such Tefilah in the Haggadah. This newest edition of the Maaseh BR’ Elazar prints the Haggadah like R’ Fleckeles did in 1818 without Li Shem Yichud.

Besides for all these new pieces added into this new edition, the volume also includes a well-written introduction about R’ Fleckeles, including an interesting eye witness account from manuscript of the day he died in Prague. Another plus to the new edition are the numerous sources they added, at times quoting R’ Fleckeles references from his other works.  Finally, there is a very useful index of topics and seforim quoted by R’ Fleckeles at the end of the volume. I really hope they continue to print the rest of R’ Fleckeles works.

To purchase this Haggadah try Girsa in Jerusalem, Biegeleisen in NY or your local seforim store.

Appendix:

One of the seforim noticeably omitted, for the most part, from R’ Fleckeles works, including this Haggadah, is the Zohar.

Much of the sources in R’ Fleckeles writings regarding the Zohar and Kabalah in general has been gathered in Boaz Huss’ recent work, KeZohar Harokeyah (pp. 322-323). Most notable is this piece which I quote here in its entirety:

ועתה אין מן הצורך להשיב את האיש אשר רצה להמצי’ דבר חדש להשביע את האיש הישראלי בספר הזוהר… את זה כתבתי לדעת האיש ההוא שהספר הזוהר כלו קדוש אבל אני אומר הריני נשבע בתורת ה’ שבספר הזוהר נמצאו כמה זיופים וקלקולים אשר הוסיפו ועלה אחת מתלמוד בבלי הויות דאביי ורבא קדוש יותר מכל ספר הזוהר הנה אם אמרו חכמי התלמוד על ברייתא דלא מתנייא בי ר’ חייא ור’ אושיעא מאן ימר דמתרצתא היא דלמא משבשתא היא וספר הזה ודאי לאו בר”ח ורב אושיעא אתמר כי כל הדורות מראש לא זכרו מספר הזוהר מאומה לא בהקיץ ולא בחלום כי הנה אם אמת הדבר שהחבור הזה הוא מהתנא ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי אשר ר’ יהודה הנשיא קבל גם ממנו כמבואר בהקדמ’ הרמב”ם לספרו יד החזק’ איך לא זכר את הספר הזה בחבורו ש”ס משניות או בשום מקום ואף ר’ יוחנן שחיבר תלמוד ירושלמית אינו מזכירו בשום מקום ורבינא ורב אשי שחברו תלמוד בבלי מאה שנים אחר חבור תלמוד ירושלמי והיו סוף אמוראים ולא שמו רמז בכל התלמוד מספר הזוהר ורבה בר נחמני שחובר רבות ושוחר טוב וכיוצא בהם הרבה לא זכרו מחבור רשב”י גם רבנן סבוראי והגאונים והרי”ף והרמב”ם ורש”י ותוס’ והרמב”ן והרשב”א והרא”ש והטור והילקוט שמעוני אשר אסף ולקט כל המדרשות והמכילתות והברייתות כלם לא ידעו ולא ראו ממנו דבר עד שזה קרו’ לשלש מאות שנים ענו ואמרו שמצאוהו ואיזהי כנסיה אשר קבלוהו בכנופיה, כמו תלמוד בבלי וירושל’ וז”ל הרמב”ם בהקדמתו לספר יד החזקה אבל כל הדברים שבגמרא הבבלי חייבין כל ישראל ללכת בהם וכופין כל עיר ועיר וכל מדינה ומדינה לנהוג בכל המנהגות שנהגו חכמי הגמרא ולגזור גזירותם וללכת בתקנותם הואיל וכל אותם דברים שבגמרא הסכימו עליהם כל ישראל עכ”ל ויעיין עוד שם ואין אני חלילה מטיל דופי ופגם בכבוד התנא אלדי ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי כי הוא היה מחסידי עליון אלא אני אומר לאו גושפנקא דרשב”י ועזקתיה חתום עליה ומי שיש לו חצי דעת יגיד כן שהרי נזכרו בספר הזוהר כמה תנאים ואמוראי’ שהיו אחר רשב”י שנים רבות במספר והארכתי בזה במקום אחר מפי סופרים ומפי ספרים כמבואר בס’ מטפחת להגאון מו”ה יעב”ץ זצלל”ה שגזר אומר שחלו בו ידים מזייפים וחשד את החכם ר’ משה דיליון יעיי”ש.

והינה מיום שנתחדש ספר הזוהר הרבה נכשלו ע”י כי כמה דברים סתומים וחתומים אשר המציאו האחרוני’ להתעות בני אדם יושבי חשך השכל, צאו וראו כמה קלקולים רבים קלקלו מאמיני הכלב רע שבתי צבי שבור ואחוזת מרעהו ברכי מסאלנוקא ויעקב פראנק שם רשעים ירקב, ותלו דבריהם בספר הזוהר אשר בודאי לא יאונה לצדיק ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי כל און.

מה טוב ומה נעים, אשר כתבתי בחבורי קטן אשר קראתיו בשם קונטרס אהבת דוד שנדפס בק”ק פראג תק”ס וזה לשוני שם באו ונחזיק טובה וחינות לשני מלכים גדולי אדירי’ אדוננו המשובח המנוח הקיסר יאזעף השני ואדוננו המהולל הקיסר פראנץ השני אשר צפו והביטו בחכמתם הנפלאה, רבות רעות ושבושי דעות תסתעפנה מחלומות והבלים המקובלים, והמה לנזקי בני האדם נזקי הגופות ונזקי הנפשות, ופקדו באזהרה גדולה שלא להביא ספרי קבלה בכל מדינות מלכותם הפקודה הראשונה העכסט האף דעקרעט פאם ב’ נאוועמבר למספרם והשני פאם ז’ יוני למספרם והארכתי שמה בדברים נכונים… (תשובה מאהבה חלק א סי’ כו).

According to Shmuel Werses, Haskalah and Sabbatianism, (Heb.), pp. 68 and Boaz Huss, KeZohar Harokeyah (p.323) this teshuvah has been censored out of the 1912 edition of TM. I have been unable to independently confirm this, as the 1912 editions I have seen (both in NLI and in BIU) have it in full – as do most reprints available today, including the edition found on the HebrewBooks.org website

In another teshuvah on this topic R’ Fleckeles writes:

ובלא”ה כבר כתבתי פעמי’ רבות שאין ראי’ מזוהר שלא נודע ברור מי הוא המאסף והמלקט ספר הזוהר והרבה הוסיפו  (תשובה מאהבה א:סב).

It is worth pointing out that R’ Fleckeles does not dismiss the Zohar completely taking it into account elsewhere in TM; for example in this teshuvah he writes:

מה ששאלני מדוע רובא דעלמא מקילים והולכים בבקר ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים שחרית הא כבר כתב המ”א בשם הב”ח בשם תולעת יעקב כל ההולך ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים שחרית חייב מית’ עיי”ש וכמה בני תורה אשר אינם שוגגים מקילים ואין להם על מה שיסמכו. ידע ידידי שדבר זה כתב בעל תועלת יעקב בשם הזוהר וכן העתיקו הב”ח, והמג”א השמיט בשם הזהר או מן השמים השמיטוהו כי חפשתי בספר הזוהר יגעתי ולא מצאתי ובעל א”ר האמין לשמועותיו בשם הזוהר והאר”י וצדר להקל עיין סי”א סק”ד ולבסוף מסיק בשם ספר דמשק אליעזר שדבר זה  דוקא בזמנם כמו גילוי וזוגות עיין שם ולענ”ד ליתא בזוהר כלל והרב בית יוסף אשר העתיק בכל פעם דברי הזוהר לא שם רמז מזה ושארי לי’ מארי’ שעשה רוב ישראל לחייבי מיתות שוגגן ישרים יחזו במסכת ברכות דף  סמ”ך ע”ב ישר יחזו פנימו ולענ”ד היא משנת חסידים והזריז הרי זה משובח ואפשר דזוהר מיירי אם מים מצוים לפניו והולך ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים ואח”ז ה’ אנה לידי ספר ברכי יוסף וראיתי שמביא דברי הזוהר כת”י וסיים וזה לשונו אלא דשמיע לי מרבני קדישו דזמנין דמיא הרחק מאד מאדם ובלכתם ילכו פחות מד’ אמות כאותה שאמרו גבי שבת עיין שם סימן א’ אות א’ ולשון הזוהר אינו לפני לעיין והנרא’ לענ”ד כתבתי. (תשובה מאהבה חלק א סי’ יד וראה חלק ב סי’ א אות ד)

As an aside, the shitos of R. Fleckeles on the Zohar are bland compared to those of his Rebbe, the Noda Beyehudah, as found in the recently printed drasha of his from manuscript by Dr. Maoz Kahana and M. Silber. I note in passing that this drasha has sparked a debate between them and Dr. Flatto, to which she responded in a later version of the journal Kabbalah.

The exodus from Egypt was led by Moses and Aaron. Moses, however, does not appear in the Passover haggadah (with one exception that is likely a later interpolation).[1] Aaron does make two appearances in the hallel section.  That said, in numerous illuminated haggadahs, from the medieval period to present, both appear in illustrated form. Additionally, in printed haggadot, most notably the 1609 Venice haggadah, one of the seminal illustrated haggadot, Moses and Aaron appear on the decorative border.

Generally, conclusively determining Jewish material culture, especially from the biblical period, is nearly impossible.  Regarding Moses, other than his staff, the bible provides no additional information.[2]  Aaron is a different story.

The Torah expends a significant amount of verses discussing the details of the Kohen Gadol’s (the high priest) garments but while the descriptions are detailed, we still struggle to determine what these special clothes looked like.  Rashi, for example, has to resort to anachronistic parallels for the “me’il” comparing it to a medieval French equestrian pant.  Similarly, by the Talmudic time, the details of the headband were subject to dispute. We should briefly pause here to correct a common misconception – that the Vatican or the Catholic Church still retains items related to the Jewish temple.  Unfortunately, this misconception is so prevalent, that a number of Israeli officials have requested that the Vatican repatriate the temple vessels.  Briefly, while the Talmud mentions that sometime between the 2nd and 5th centuries, temple vessels may have resided in Rome, there is no indication whatsoever of them since the 5th century. In addition, due to the numerous sackings that Rome underwent, or the reality that the Catholic Church is an entirely different sovereign than the Roman ruler Vespasian who sacked Jerusalem, it must be regarded as highly unlikely at best that any former temple vessels remain (assuming they were ever there) within the Vatican. For additional discussion regarding this issue, see here.

The ambiguity about the clothing has not stopped many from attempting to depict what they believe is the correct version.  Thus, depictions of Aaron the High Priest appear in Hebrew books. Hebrew manuscripts did not shy away from including illuminations and illustrations to create a more aesthetically pleasing product.  All sorts of shapes and images are employed to this end, on page borders, end pages, or just sprinkled throughout a manuscripts and – geometric patterns (Hebrew manuscripts are the first to use micrography), animals, people or combinations thereof of half-human-half-beast.  Noticeably, however, biblical figures are not included in this category. While biblical scenes appear in Hebrew manuscripts it is only to actually illustrate the content, and not independently for aesthetic purposes.

With printing, however, this slowly changed. Printing began in 1455 with Gutenberg and Hebrew books followed soon after.  These early books, however, did not follow all the conventions that we associate with books today.  Title pages did not begin until the 16th century and it wasn’t until the early 17th century that title pages were de rigueur.  Apart from information relevant to the books contents, title pages also began to included aesthetic details.  Sometimes these are architectural, pillars etc. other times flowers or some other flower or fauna.

Generally, printers did not explain why certain images were included on title pages, the assumption is that it was simply for aesthetic purposes.  At least in one case, this was made explicit.  The Shu’’t Ma-harit”z, Venice, 1684, by Yom Tov Tzalahon, includes an illustration of the temple on the title page.  The publisher, Tzalahon’s grandson, provides that this was included as “it makes it more beautiful” and he was so enamored with the illustration – even though it is very rudimentary he included it three times in the book (this likely speaks more about the publisher’s exposure – or lack thereof – to art in general).[3]

There are, however, at least a few examples of a title page illustration serving a purpose beyond the aesthetic. Some illustrations are including because of allusions to the author’s name, but at least in one instance a Hebrew title page illustration was used to illustrate the title.

The most common form appearing “on the frontispiece of countless printed books,” were biblical figures Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, nearly always coupled, and “became the accepted heraldic figures.”[4]  The first biblical figures to appear in Hebrew books were was a woodcut by Hans Holbein of David and Solomon, flanking one, among other biblical scenes, in the Augsburg 1540 Arba’ah Turim. This illustration, however, did not appear on the title page, which is plain, instead it appears on folio 7.[5]  See Heller, 242-43.

The first frontispiece to include a biblical figure is the Tur Orach Hayyim, Prague, 1540, that includes, at the top of the page, a depiction of Moses holding the tablets.[6] The first frontispiece to include the coupling of biblical figures – the most ubiquitous form of biblical figures – is Jacob Moelin’s She’elot u-Teshuvot Mahril printed in Hanau in 1610. That frontispiece depicts Moses on the left in one hand the tablets and the other hand he grasps his staff.  Aaron is wearing the garments of the high priest:  the tunic, bells, breastplate and and is carrying the incense.

 

The usage of Moses and Aaron on Hebrew frontispieces thus began with Hanau, 1610.  By way of comparison, the first appearance of Moses and Aaron on the frontispiece of a book in English was the King James Bible, published a year after Hanau in 1611. The Hanau printer reused the Moses/Aaron frontispiece on two more books:  Nishmat Adam by Aaron Samuel ben Moshe Shalom of Kremenets, 1611 and Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla’s, Ginat Egoz, Hanau 1615.[7]  The illustration best fits the Nishmat Adam, and may have originally been the book for which this illustration was intended and not Molin’s.  Unlike Jacob Molin’s work that has no direct connection with Aaron or Moses, the author of Ginat Egoz’s name includes both Moses and Aaron, and while Samuel is not captured in the illustration, the year of publication is derived from “Samuel.”

Moses and Aaron became the most common biblical figures on frontispieces, but not the exclusive ones.  In some instance, a mélange of biblical figures is presented.  The Amsterdam printer, Solomon Proops, included the image of Moses, Aaron, David, and Solomon, each wearing a crown, and a Moses carrying not the tablets but instead the Torah scroll.

A deviation from the coupling of Moses and Aaron appears in Beit Aharon, Frankfurt am Oder, 1690, which displays Aaron and Samuel.  In that instance, however, the deviation is explained because the figures are allusions to the author’s name, Aaron ben Samuel.  The use of coupled figures was not exclusive to Biblical figures; in many Hebrew books a variety of mythical and pagan figures and scenes are commonplace on title pages.  A partial list of pagan deities include:  Venus, Hercules, Mars and Minerva that appear on ennobled works such as Rambam’s Mishne Torah, Venice 1574, and Abarabenel’s commentary on Devarim, Sabbioneta 1551, and were reused many times.[8]  The use of pagan figures in Jewish items is not limited to Hebrew books and these images appear on the Second Temple menorah, and the Dionysus, Poseidon are inscribed on Palestinian mezuzot, Sefer Raziel mentions Zeus and Aphrodite, Dionysus and Poseidon reappears in a common prayer said during the priestly blessings, and Dionysus appears individually in the additionally yehi ratzon that some recite during Aveinu Malkanu (helpfully Artscroll and other siddurim direct that for the prayers that include these names, they should “only be scanned with the eyes and concentrated upon, but should not be spoken,” as they are “divine names”).[9]

Returning to the use of Moses and Aaron on frontispieces of Hebrew books, as mentioned above, the basic form of the illustrations remained fairly static with Moses appearing with his staff and/or the tablets or the Torah and Aaron in his priestly clothing.  And, these are prevalent throughout the 17th century, across the Europe and the Middle East.  In Europe the coupling appears in Altona, Amsterdam, Venice, Furth and Izmir, on diverse works – Talmudic commentaries, Mendelssohn’s commentary to the bible, and a commentary on the zemirot (which includes a heliocentric depiction of the constellations).  

A slightly different version appears in the Ma’ashe Rokeakh that has Aaron holding a slaughter knife.

There is, however, one notable exception to this depiction both in terms of the items displayed in addition to the “coupling.”  Aaron ben Hayyim Perachia’s Perekh Matteh Aaron, published in Amsterdam, 1703, includes a coupling but rather than Moses and Aaron, in this instance both images are that of Aaron.  Additionally, the Aaron on the left is the standard depiction of items, but the one on right is distinct in that it has Aaron holding a budding almond branch – perach mateh Aaron.  Of course, these deviations are understandable as the “second” Aaron and his unique “staff” is not merely aesthetic but is illustrative of the title of the book, the first time an title page illustration illustrates the title.[10]

A final note regarding the frontispiece depictions of two items Aaron’s clothing.  First, in many instances, including the Hanau prints, Aaron’s hat is not the traditional wrapping or turban associated with the mitznefet, but a bishop’s mitre.  At times, the mitre is horned, for example, Zohar, Amsterdam, 1706.  The horned mitre, however, is based upon “the mistaken belief that the horned mitre descended from the Jewish high priest” when in reality the bishop’s mitre is related to “Moses’ horns and their symbolic meaning within the context of the medieval Church.”[11]

The frontispiece is not the only time that the kohen’s headgear is interpreted contrary to Jewish tradition.  In a recent illustrated edition of Mishna Tamid, the editors depict the Kohen not only wearing the turban but also a yarmulke.  The Torah enumerates the priestly garments and any addition to those items is subject to the death penalty.  Thus, a Kohen wearing a yarmulke – as illustrated and that is not included in the Torah’s description of the Kohen’s outfit – commits a capital crime.[12] Here is another example of Aaron, looking very much like a bishop. This illustration is from a 15th century manuscript called המשכן וכליו by Simon ben Joel.

Unlike Aaron’s head-covering that appears from time to time as a bishop’s mitre, the second odd item that Aaron carries appears almost universally. Specifically, Aaron holds the incense in his hand, but unlike the Rabbinic interpretation that the incense was delivered in a shovel, Aaron is always depicted with the incense in a ball or  censer.  There is no Jewish source that records that form of the incense ritual and is an exclusive non-Jewish understanding of the Torah.

Ironically, the only person to take issue with the depiction of Moses and Aaron (and other biblical figures) argues against their use does not raise these issues nevertheless counsels against these biblical depictions.  His rationale, however, is counter-factual.  Specifically, Samuel Aboab, decries the depiction of biblical figures because the depictions are anachronistic and but for non-Jewish influences would never have been included in Jewish items.

While there is no doubt that some elements of the depictions are non-traditional, since at least the second century, biblical figures are found in a variety of Jewish contexts.  For example, the second century synagogue of Dura Europos and a few years later at the Bet Alpha synagogue contain biblical images. Dura Europos contains numerous illustrations of biblical figures and scenes, including Moses and Aaron.  And, while Abaob is correct that both Moses and Aaron are depicted anachronistically – in typical clothing of that time period, a toga-like garment – this is simply explained by the fact the purpose of the illustrations was to remind the viewers of the people and stories.  Therefore, had Aaron “been depicted with the biblical clothing that were no longer in use, the viewer might not know what they are looking at.”[13]  Thus, the anachronisms are not to make these seminal biblical figures in our image, but to simply ensure that the art clearly transmit its message.

Upcoming Auction Review:

By Dan Rabinowitz and Eliezer
Brodt

In
recent years a number of auction houses specializing in Hebrew books,
manuscripts and ephemera have opened.  In
some instances, these have displaced and surpassed more well-established houses
and certainly provide more opportunities for the collector. A new house, Legacy Auctions, is holding its first
auction on April 13. One can view their complete catalog here
[There is also a link to a PDF if one scrolls down here.] As we have done in the past, we
wanted to highlight some of the available items.

Lot
23 is R. Samuel David Luzzato’s, (Shadal), the Italian biblical scholar and
relative of R Moses Hayyim Luzzato (Ramchal), translation and commentary to
the Torah, published in 1871-76 (lot 23). While Shadal modeled his edition
based upon Mendelshon’s Pentateuch, unlike Mendelsshon’s version that translates the
Torah in German using Hebrew characters, Shadal’s contains an Italian
translation, in Latin characters.  In
both Mendelsshon and Shadal’s works the accompanying commentary is in
Hebrew.  Ironically, Shadal, in the
introduction takes a much more aggressive stance regarding the ability to
reinterpret biblical texts contrary to established conventions while
Mendelsshon’s introduction defends traditional positions, most notably the
positon that the Zohar dates to the 2nd century and was authored by
R. Shimon bar Yochai.  Mendelsshon’s
version was banned which never occurred with Shadal’s version. Worth mentioning
is that Shadal’s work was just reprinted with much new material from
manuscripts [for a sample email Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com]

Ha-Torah ve-Hochmah
by R. Zechariah Isaiah Jolles
(lot 28) [See here]
is interesting for a number of reasons – it includes a portrait of the author –
and some are discussed in the lot’s descriptions, but others include his work Megilah Nikrat. In an attempt to answer
the “question” why the generic word “megilah” refers to Esther even though there
are other megilot, he posits that the entire story of Esther can be told
using the acrostic of Mem, gimil, lamed,
heh, and then proceeds to do so. Especially noteworthy is his mentioning of
a custom he attributes to the Gra, a repetition of a “suspect” word in Tanach, le-hasmeid (vev) le-harog in Megilat
Esther.  There are numerous words that we
are unsure of their pronunciation yet, we never repeat them.  Indeed, the custom he records, and its
expanded form of repeating zekher/zekher, is a very late custom
as this book wasn’t published in 1913, and thus evidences the modernish basis of the custom.  

Lot
43-44 are two books regarding the Cleves Get controversy, both of which
belonged to R. Ruderman the late Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel. A number of
books in this auction come from his collection, which evidence a very eclectic
scope.  This is somewhat ironic in
light of the alleged tale that at Ner Israel, even the Abrarbanel’s commentary was kept under
lock and key. (Many also bear the stamp of R. Ruderman’s son-in-law, R. Yaakov
Weinberg.)

Returning
to the Get of Cleves controversy.  The
bet din of Cleves accepted a get from
a husband whose sanity was questioned.  A
get requires awareness and insanity
void the get. Another bet din,
Frankfort, however, questioned the validity of that annulment. Because
questioning the ruling of another bet din runs afoul of the accepted ruling of
Rabbenu Tam, this immediately escalated into a major battle with each side
publishing books justifying their respective positions.  The Cleves’ Rabbi, Israel Lipchitz, published
Or Yisrael, defending his position
and his work was subject to censorship – mainly to excise the rulings of others
who agreed with him.  In this particular
copy other passages critical of some rabbis have been crossed out.   And, while the Cleves controversy occurred
in the late 18th century, this issue is far from settled.  Regularly, (indeed, as recently as the past
six months) courts, and sometimes just individuals, attack the divorce ruling
of their sister courts.  Although,
depending upon the circumstances, the original courts, rather than defending
themselves as the Frankfort court did, do not defend or even recant their
original rulings.

Another
work that touches on censorship, although there is nothing controversial in the
book, is R. Hutner’s Torat Ha-Nazir
(lot 49).  This is first edition of the
book, Kovno, 1932, in paperback, and includes the approbation of R. Kook, among
others.  And, like other books containing
his approbation, in reprints of Torat
ha-Nazir the approbation does not appear. 
Unlike other examples, however, in this instance it was not only R.
Kook’s approbation depending upon which reprint of Torat ha-Nazir, either all the approbations are missing or all the
ones on the page that R. Kook’s appears. For other examples of censorship of R.
Kook, see here.

The
first edition of the Vilna Goan’s commentary on Shulchan Orach Yoreh De’ah (lot 92) is among the many sifrei ha-Gra offered.  The first edition of the Shulchan Orach is
unique not only being the first time his commentary was published but also because
of the format.  Unlike, the Ba’al
haTanya, who successfully began the  publishing of his commentary during his lifetime, the
Gra’s commentary was left to his sons to publish.  By this time, however, the format of the Shulchan Orach had been standardized
with the main body in the middle of the page and, depending upon the volume,
two commentaries on surrounding it with a handful of others filling the
page.  Adding the Gra’s commentary posed
a problem, where on the page should it be? If the regular layout was retained,
the Gra’s commentary would be relegated to the bottom of the page, something
that was unconscionable to some.  Thus,
in this volume, Yoreh Deah, (the
Gra’s commentary to Shulchan Orach
wasn’t published at once, the final volumes on Hoshen Mishpat were not published until 1866), removes the standard
commentaries of the Shach and Taz, and only the Gra’s comments and
that of his ancestor, the Be’ar ha-Goleh
appear.  Apparently the removal of the
standard commentaries led to a minor insurrection and in the middle of the
volume on Even ha-Ezer they were
restored. Consequently, up to siman
25, the format of just the Gra appears and beyond that the regular commentaries
were restored.  Apparently R. Hayim
Volhzhin had to approve of moving the Gra’s comments to “below the fold,” for
this to occur. 

In
the history of the Hebrew book, one of the greatest authors (in terms of his
literary output alone) and bibliographers is R. Hayim Yosef David Azulai,
Hida.  Lot 136, is his commentary on Horayos and some responsum, Sha’ar Yosef.  But this copy was a presentation copy and
contains a dedication from Hida, in his hand, to “the great scholar and friend
R. Shmayah Seryannu.”

One
of the unique representations of Aaron the High Priest appears on the
frontispiece of Ma’aseh Rokeach,
Venice, 1742 (lot 147).  Aaron is
carrying a slaughter knife.  Beyond the
frontispiece, the work itself is important as it contains Rambam’s comments
from manuscript that were recorded by his son, Abraham.

Another unique item
is Ahavat Dovid (lot
18) from R. Eleazar Fleckeles (see here)
which is series of derashot he gave against Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob
Frank. In general, throughout R. Fleckeles
writings, there are interesting statements about Kabbalah and the Zohar
especially, in this work he prints a letter from R. Naftali Hertz Wessley which
says: 

This letter is
censored out of some of the editions of this work See Marc Shapiro, Changing
the Immutable, p. 220.

Also worth
mentioning is his description of R. Yeshaya Pick in this work:

 

Some other first editions worth
mentioning are, Minchas Chinuch published anonymously in 1869 (lot 35), and
Nefesh HaChaim, Vilna 1824 (lot 86).

There
are many other noteworthy lots, including one incunabula (lot 17), and many
letters and other ephemera related to important pre-Holocaust Yeshivot,
including the Mir and Telshe and letters from R. Hayyim Heller, R. Kook,
Seridei Eish, R. Mordechai Banet. 
Hopefully this is just the first of many auctions for Legacy.